‘On Wednesday I stressed the importance of pre-action correspondence and how the drafting of a letter before claim can make all the difference between getting what you want quickly and cheaply through focused negotiation and precipitating an expensive and possibly protracted law suit in Pre-Action Correspondence – Not Just a Box to be ticked or a Hoop to be jumped through 2 Aug 2017. Today, I shall tell you what to do if you receive a letter accusing you of infringing a patent or some other intellectual property right.’

‘Personal injury (PI) lawyers may have experienced a powerful sense of deja vu last week when the government announced a review of fees in holiday sickness claims. The same apocalyptic warnings of rampant fraud; the same incessant lobbying from a trade body. And ultimately the same solution – fixed costs – provided by ministers who would rather the whole thing just went away.’

‘The Court of Appeal has ruled that qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) should apply where an injured party has the right to pursue compensation against an organisation such as an insurance company or tour operator, rather than the wrongdoer.’

‘Qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) does apply for the benefit of a paralysed lorry driver who had his claim struck out against the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB), the Court of Appeal has ruled, overturning the High Court.’

‘The Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) has warned lawyers involved in the “highly contentious area” of credit hire litigation that if they fail to agree a new model order for directions, they risk “a solution being imposed”.’

‘In this Judgment handed down last week, the Court considered the potential for credit hire companies, who were not parties to the litigation, to be the subject of costs orders. The Appellant car hire company was the subject of such a non-party costs order at first instance and appealed to the High Court. The decision is one which anyone involved in credit hire should be aware of.

‘Practical completion is a key concept in any construction project. It has a significant impact on a party’s rights and obligations, and represents a major milestone in the overall project timetable. Under the majority of construction projects, it marks the point at which the clock starts running for the overall transfer of risk from the contractor to the owner.’

‘Last month I discussed the Court of Appeal decision in Ashfaq v International Insurance Company of Hannover PLC [2017] EWCA Civ 357 in which the insurers were held to be entitled to avoid a commercial landlord policy on grounds of non-disclosure of pending criminal proceedings. The Courts again considered avoidance for misrepresentation and non-disclosure in this latest case heard by Judge Slater in the Queens Bench Division.’

‘The Court of Appeal has held in Cameron v Hussain and Liverpool Victoria [2017] EWCA Civ 366 that a Claimant can obtain a judgment against a Defendant identified only by description of him as the driver of a vehicle on a particular date. Whilst in almost every other area of law such judgment would be worthless as unenforceable, the Road Traffic Act 1988 provisions impose a contingent liability against the insurer of the vehicle to satisfy such a judgment. At first blush this seems to dismantle the careful limitations placed on the European Communities (Rights Against Insurers) Regulations 2002 to effectively enable a Claimant to pursue the insurer of a vehicle despite the fact that the driver of the same is unknown. This article, drafted by Park Square Barristers’ insurance indemnity specialists, Richard Paige and Judy Dawson, looks at the Court of Appeal judgment and the implications for the insurance industry.’

‘Leases generally require leaseholders to contribute to insurance of their block – whether by including the cost in the general service charges or by way of a separate charge known as an “insurance rent”.’

‘Patients taking out private health insurance expect to get the best treatment, but what happens if things go wrong? While the NHS has paid out millions to the patients of disgraced breast surgeon Ian Paterson, his private patients are still seeking compensation. Why?’

‘Subsequent to the defendant bank and its directors having learnt of the identity of the third party funders of the claimants following a successful application made under CPR r 25.14, the defendants sought security for costs pursuant to CPR r 25.14(2)(b) against those funders. That application was prompted by settlements with some of the original claimants, as a result of which the remaining claimants’ exposure to adverse costs increased, and by the defendants learning that the claimants did not have adequate after-the-event (“ATE”) insurance cover in place. The first respondent, a commercial funder and British Virgin Islands entity, opposed the application on the grounds that: (a) its financial position was such that it would be well able to meet any award for costs and in any event the defendants had not demonstrated that the claimants would fail to meet a costs award against them; and (b) the application was made extremely late and therefore caused it and the claimants real prejudice. The second respondent, an Isle of Man entity that was not in the business of litigation funding and provided funding close to the eve of trial, opposed the application on the grounds that: (a) it was unlikely that a section 51 order would be made against it in due course; and (b) no security was justified or necessary on the evidence and the timing was oppressive. Both respondents also argued that: (c) the quantum of security sought was excessive.’

‘The overwhelming majority of solicitors understand the need to offer their clients financial protection during the course of litigation, however, often the inclination is to assist in safeguarding their client’s financial risk is generally befitting when it comes to Issuing Proceedings. At this juncture it becomes appropriate to make a recommendation of the possibility in obtaining After the Event Insurance.’

‘Victims of a rogue breast surgeon who left hundreds of patients disfigured after carrying out needless operations have called for “co-conspirators” to be held to account, accusing them of turning a blind eye to the malpractice.’

‘This case concerned the issue of whether or not claimants (or their solicitors) should be obliged to repay Stage 1 costs of £400 + VAT (under the “old” Portal rules) in claims which did not then proceed to Stage 2.’